Misunderstanding Emblems As An Expression Form Of Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 203, 204):

In reviewing our proposals for sonovergent and semovergent systems, it is important to keep in mind that we are treating emblems as part of the expression form of language and not as paralanguage (Figure 7.4) – and thus excluded thumbs-up or thumbs-down (as praise or censure), index finger touching lips (for ‘quiet please’), hand cupped over ear (for ‘I can’t hear’) and so on from our description. Our reasoning was presented in Chapter 1, Section 1.6. This was the basis of our argument that semovergent paralanguage cannot be used to support NEGOTIATION by distinguishing move types in dialogic exchanges (although sonovergent paralanguage can of course support tone choice in relation to these moves).

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, emblems involve both content and expression, and so are not merely an expression form. Moreover, they are not language because their content plane is not stratified into semantics and grammar. Instead, the use emblems requires the prior evolution and development of language, as demonstrated by the fact that other species do not use them, and so are classified as 'epilinguistic' in Cléirigh's model, which does indeed make them 'semovergent' in the authors' model. See also the previous post: Emblems As Language Expressions.

[2] Figure 7.4 misrepresents all language content as 'form'. To be clear, the only form on the content plane is the formal constituency of grammar: clause, phrase, group, word, morpheme.

[3] See the previous post: The Argument That 'Emblems' Are Part Of Language.

[4] To be clear, the authors (p202) have themselves presented an instance of a move type, a gestured command, but failed to recognise it as a SPEECH FUNCTION:

She then mimes his ideational paralanguage as he twice gestures for her to leave (including a deictic pointing gesture).

Problems With The Authors' Analysis Of Paralinguistic Focus

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 146-7):

In (24), PARALINGUISTIC FOCUS as [sharpen] is expressed in the narrowly targeted index-finger point that zooms in towards the Other Mother. This expression of sharpened FOCUS functions to identify the target (Other Mother) in a highly specifying manner (see Chapter 6). This together with the expression of negative judgement in the spoken language in stole serves to amplify the expression of [disdain] in FACIAL AFFECT.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, GRADUATION is the scaling of an interpersonal APPRAISAL (Martin & White 2005: 135). The evaluation here is made through the process stole, so any upscaling of the evaluation must be an upscaling of stole not of the evaluated you. So there is no sharpening of the FOCUS of evaluation here (nor a quantifying of the FORCE of evaluation expressed by the extended arm). The interpersonal function of the orientation of the index-finger of the clay puppet here is simply deictic: it points to the addressee you from the speaker I .

[2] To be clear, this is an instance of 'pointing the finger' which is to accuse or blame (someone) — a 'j'accuse' — a gesture which the authors might easily have classified, in their own terms, as an emblem, since they write (p38):

Gestures treated as playing a speech functional role in dialogue in other models are treated as emblems in our framework.

In terms of Cléirigh's original model, this is a genuine example of epilinguistic body language — not to be found in protolinguistic species — in which the gesture expresses an appraisal of judgement, an accusation of wrongdoing, which the authors claimed (pp118, 121) that body language can not do.

[3] To be clear, the judgement instantiated as body language is consistent with the judgement instantiated as language. Whether or not the face of the clay puppet here specifically represents disdain, a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior is arguable, at the very least.

Confusing Content With Expression, Semiosis With Somasis, And Paralanguage With Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 97):

DEPICTION considers whether the paralinguistic entity has a defined contour that is visually ‘drawn’ in space (by, e.g. drawing the outline of an entity with a pointed finger in the air) or ‘sculpted’ (by, e.g. cupping a hand as in the example in (3)). The features sculpted and drawn correspond to two of Müller’s (1998) four modes of expression used in representational gestures: drawing (tracing the silhouette of an object in the air with a finger or hand) and moulding (sculpting or shaping the form of an object with the hands). 

Müller’s (1998) two other modes, imitating/acting (‘acting out’ an action) and representing/portraying (where the hands represent an object, e.g. a ‘V’ shape made with middle fingers to represent scissors) are dealt with in Chapter 1 in terms of somasis and emblems, respectively.

Blogger Comments:

[1] As previously explained, the term 'paralinguistic entity' confuses discourse semantics (entity) with paralanguage misunderstood as an expression-only semiotic system. To be clear, gestures are expressions that realise semantic entities; they are not the entities — just as phonemes that realise semantic entities are not the entities.

[2] To be clear, the system of DEPICTION confuses content (entity) with its expression (drawn, sculpted).

[3] To be clear, here the authors misunderstand semiosis as nonsemiosis (somasis). A gesture that imitates (mimes) an action represents that action, and as such, is semiotic, since it means something other than the gesture itself.

[4] As seen in Chapter 1, the authors treat emblems as part of language, rather than paralanguage, so here they are claiming that a hand shape that means 'scissors' is language. To be clear, even in their own model, this hand shape semovergently realises the entity 'scissors'. Here again the authors have become confused by taking the view 'from below' (expression) rather than the view 'from above' (content). That is, because the V-shape meaning 'scissors' resembles the V-shape meaning 'two', they have classified it in the same way: as an emblem.

Emblems As Language Expressions

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 42-3):

The relationship we are emphasising between emblems and alternative expression form systems is outlined in Figure 1.10, using the words zero, one, two, three, four and five as examples. These words can be alternatively expressed in English through segmental phonology (e.g. /tuw/), graphological characters (e.g. ‘2’) or hand gestures (e.g. index and middle finger vertical).

An outline of the place of emblems in our overall system is presented in Figure 1.11. Rather than treating them as a dimension of paralanguage, we treat them as part of language proper – as an alternative manifestation of its own expression form.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Notion That Emblematic Gestures Are Linguistic Alternatives To Phonology And Graphology.

To be clear, Kendon's 'emblems', which he describes as 'quotable gestures', are conventionalised signs, such as 'thumbs-up', the 'V-sign', or the 'middle-finger salute'.  As signs, they are meaning/expression pairs, not tri-stratal language.

The authors, however, here present hand-shapes representing numbers as emblems and, on that basis, argue that the gestures involved are an alternative form of linguistic expression, along with phonology and graphology. An easy way to falsify this claim is to try to use emblematic gestures alone to express the following verse from Kenneth Grahame's The Wind In The Willows:

The clever men at Oxford
Know all that there is to be knowed.
But they none of them know one half as much,
As intelligent Mr. Toad!

The Argument That 'Emblems' Are Part Of Language

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 42):

These gestures differ from the semovergent ones illustrated thus far in critical ways (cf. McNeill, 2012: 7–10). For one thing they commit very specific meanings and can be readily recognised without accompanying co-text (linguistic or paralinguistic). As part of this specificity they can enact moves in exchange structure on their own, for example, statements and requests, alongside greetings and leave-takings (hand waving), calls (beckoning gestures), agreement (nodding head), disagreement (shaking head), challenges (upright palm facing forward for ‘stop’) and so on. For another they are the first thing that comes to mind when someone mentions gesture. And in this regard they are often commented on as culturally specific (e.g. the difference between an Anglo supine hand beckoning gesture and its Filipino prone hand equivalent). In both respects emblems contrast with common-sense dismissals of the paralanguage as idiosyncratic (although none of us has any trouble successfully interpreting another speaker’s sonovergent and semovergent systems). From the perspective of the sign languages of the deaf, emblems most strongly resemble signs; they are expression form gestures explicitly encoding meaning. Similarly, from the perspective of character-based writing systems (such as those of Chinese), emblems most strongly resemble characters (but gestured rather than scribed). 

This indicates that from an SFL perspective emblems are better treated as part of language than as a dimension of paralanguage.

 Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): The Argument That 'Emblems' Are Part Of Language.

To be clear, here the authors outline their argument for classifying what Kendon terms 'emblems' as language rather than semovergent paralanguage (Cléirigh's epilinguistic body language).

[1] Incidentally, here the authors exemplify the use the word one as a constituent of a conjunctive Adjunct; see the preceding post on the vlogger gesturing the meaning 'one'.

[2] To be clear, in SFL theory, unknown to the authors, the conventionalisation of the meaning of specific gestures in a community corresponds to the move of the sign (content/expression pair) from the instance pole to the system pole of the cline of instantiation.  However, since this can occur in the development of semiotic systems in general — e.g. protolanguage, emoji, pictorial signage — it does not support the authors' argument that emblems are part of language.

[3] To be clear, gestures don't "commit" meanings, they realise them, since realisation is the relation between expression and content.  'Commitment', on the other hand, in Martin's own terms, is concerned with  instantiation, the relation between potential and instance, though, as previously explained here, the notion derives from Martin's misunderstanding of systemic delicacy.

[4] To be clear, here the authors have switched attention from tone groups to exchange structures in an attempt to fudge their argument.  In their own terms, these moves would constitute examples of interpersonal semovergent paralanguage, since the meaning of these gestures "resonates" or "converges" with the meanings of Martin's interpersonal discourse semantic system of NEGOTIATION.  Accordingly, this does not support the authors' argument that emblems are part of language.

[5] The authors' "argument" here is that because these gestures are regarded as prototypical gestures, they are therefore part of language.

[6] To be clear, on the one hand, some emblems are culturally-specific and some are not.  So culture specificity cannot be used as an argument about emblems as a type.  On the other hand, in any case, the culture-specificity of semiotic systems is not confined to language, as demonstrated, for example, by differences in the protolanguages of separated populations of the same species.

[7] To be clear, Halliday (1989: 30-1) distinguishes paralanguage from indexical features, the latter being those that are peculiar to the individual ("idiosyncratic").  So the authors' argument here is that  emblems are language because they are not indexical features.

[8] As this blog demonstrates, the authors do have trouble in interpreting both the meaning of the vlogger gestures and the type of body language involved.

[9] To be clear, the authors' argument here is that emblems are part of language because their expressions resemble the expressions of language (Sign and Chinese), and that, in the case of one of these, at least, the expressions "explicitly encode" meaning.

On the one hand, if this is true, it applies to all languages, not just Sign and Chinese.  On the other hand, the reason it is not true is that the expressions of Sign and Chinese, encode the wording that encodes meaning, whereas the expressions of emblems only encode meaning.  That is, Sign and Chinese, being languages, are tri-stratal, whereas emblems, not being language, are bi-stratal.  Once again, the authors' argument does not support their claim that emblems are part of language.

[10] As the above clarifications demonstrate, not one of the arguments offered by the authors supports their hypothesis that emblems are part of language.

Emblems

Ngo, Hood, Martin, Painter, Smith & Zappavigna (2022: 41-2):

We conclude with a comment on what Kendon (2004) refers to as emblems, drawing on Ekman and Friesen (1969). Included here are gestures such as thumbs-up or thumbs-down (as praise or censure, respectively), index finger touching lips (for ‘quiet please’), hand cupped over ear (for ‘I can’t hear’), middle finger vertical (for ‘get fucked’) and so on. Our vlogger uses one of these gestures to introduce the first of her explanations as to why her hair is darker than usual – raising her index finger as an emblem for the numeral ‘1’.

Blogger Comments:

This is recycled almost verbatim from Martin & Zappavigna (2019). Here are the comments from the review of Martin & Zappavigna (2019): Emblems.

To be clear, in terms of SFL theory, the word one here functions like firstly, as a conjunctive Adjunct, realising a textually cohesive temporal conjunctive relation internal to the discourse.  On this basis, the index finger gesture, on Cléirigh's original model, is an instance of textual epilinguistic body language, an expression realising the same meaning as the word.

On Martin's (1992) model, cohesive conjunction is misunderstood as a logical discourse semantic system, now rebranded as CONNEXION.  On this basis, the authors here missed an opportunity to present an instance of logical semovergent paralanguage.  (It will later be seen that the authors regard emblems — what Kendon glosses as 'quotable gestures' — as expressions of language, rather than stratified paralanguage).